Met Office Hadley Centre and Climatic Research Unit HadCRUT4 and CRUTEM4 Temperature Data Sets Adjusted/Corrected/Updated… Can You Guess The Impact?

Met Office – Hadley Center – Click the pic to view at source

Image Credit: Met Office Hadley Centre

By Just The Facts, Werner Brozek and Walter Dnes

The Met Office Hadley Centre and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, have adjusted/corrected/updated their HadCRUT4 & CRUTEM4 data sets, the update occurred with the April data recently released. There does not appear to have been a press release and there was no mention of the forthcoming change in this April 15, 2013 Met Office press release that covers the data sets, however version update tags were placed in bold at the top of the HadCRUT4 page;

“Update: An updated version of HadCRUT4 is now available. HadCRUT4 is now at version HadCRUT.4.2.0.0. Details of this update can be found here

and the CRUTEM4 page:

Update: CRUTEM4 has been updated to version CRUTEM.4.2.0.0. Details of this update can be found here.

The HadCRUT4 page notes that the HadCRUT4 “land ensemble has been updated to use station data for CRUTEM4 version CRUTEM.4.2.0.0” and the Release Notes for version CRUTEM.4.2.0.0 state that:

“Additions to the CRUTEM4 archive in version CRUTEM.4.2.0.0

The changes listed below refer mainly to additions of mostly national collections of digitized and/or homogenized monthly station series. Several national meteorological agencies now produce/maintain significant subsets of climate series that are homogenized for the purposes of climate studies. In addition, data-rescue types of activities continue and this frequently involves the digitization of paper records which then become publicly available.

The principal subsets of station series processed and merged with CRUTEM (chronological order) are:

Norwegian – homogenized series

Australian (ACORN) – homogenized subset

Brazilian – non-homogenized

Australian remote islands – homogenized

Antarctic (greater) – some QC and infilling

St. Helena – some homogenization adjustment

Bolivian subset – non-homogenized

Southeast Asian Climate Assessment (SACA) – infilling /some new additions

German/Polish – a number of German and a few Polish series – non-homogenized

Ugandan – non-homogenized

USA (USHCNv2.5) – homogenized

Canada – homogenized

In addition, there have been some corrections of errors. These are mostly of a random nature and the corrections have generally been done by manual edits. For a listing of new source codes in use, see below (end).”

While the magnitude of the changes is not that large, many of the adjustments/corrections/updates to HadCRUT4;

Met Office – Hadley Center – Click the pic to view at source

and CRUTEM4;

Met Office – Hadley Center – Click the pic to view at source

are concentrated in the last 16 years, a period that the Met Office is under scrutiny for the lack of warming in their data.

Also, some of the regional changes appear quite contrived, e.g. it looks like they found five hundredths of a degree of extra warming in the Northern Hemisphere in the last couple years:

Met Office – Hadley Center – Click the pic to view at source

South America they found almost a tenth of a degree of warming over the last decade;

Met Office – Hadley Center – Click the pic to view at source

Africa, had five hundredths of a degree of extra warming in the last few years;

Met Office – Hadley Center – Click the pic to view at source

and Australia/New Zealand a tenth of a degree of additional warming over the last few years:

Met Office – Hadley Center – Click the pic to view at source

Now updating data sets to include additional measurement locations and improve precision is usually a good thing, and if this was the only occurrence of an adjustment/correction/update resulting in additional warming, one might give the Met Office Hadley Centre and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia the benefit of the doubt. However, over the last several years they have progressed through;

CRUTEM.4.2.0.0 (current version)

CRUTEM.4.1.1.0 (previous version)

CRUTEM.4.0.0.0 (initial release)

CRUTEM.3 (Corrections)

and

HadCRUT.4.2.0.0 (current version)

HadCRUT.4.1.1.0 (previous version)

HadCRUT.4.0.0.0 (initial release)

HadCRUT.3 (Corrections)

and it seems like the impact of each adjustment/correction/update is to increase the appearance of recent warming. The move from HadCRUT3 to HadCRUT4 was particularly troubling, i.e.;

“HadCRUT4 was introduced in March 2012. [2]It “includes the addition of newly digitised measurement data, both over land and sea, new sea-surface temperature bias adjustments and a more comprehensive error model for describing uncertainties in sea-surface temperature measurements”. [3] Overall, the net effect of HadCRUT4 versus HadCRUT3 is an increase in the average temperature anomaly, especially around 1950 and 1855, and less significantly around 1925 and 2005. [4]Also, the warmest year on record, which was 1998 with HadCRUT3, is now 2010 with HadCRUT4. [5]” Wikipedia

The difference between HadCRUT3 to HadCRUT4 is clearly visible in this WoodForTrees graph;

WoodForTrees.org – Paul Clark – Click the pic to view at source

however, note that WoodForTrees.org is still on CRUTEM.4.1.0.0, i.e. thus that difference will grow if/when WFTs is updated to CRUTEM.4.2.0.0

Also a note should be made regarding the graph that showed Hadcrut4 was about to go below the 95% mark. With the old version, 2011 and 2012 had anomalies of 0.399 and 0.433 respectively. The new Hadcrut4 has 2011 and 2012 go up to 0.406 and 0.448 respectively. It appears as if they bought themselves some time, but as you can see in the table, the average for the first three months is 0.420. So while this is even below the original 0.433, it is only for three months so it does not mean too much yet.

Source HADCRUT4.1 HADCRUT4.2
1.yr 2010 2010
1.an 0.540 0.547
2.yr 2005 2005
2.an 0.534 0.539
3.yr 1998 1998
3.an 0.523 0.531
Jan 0.378
Feb 0.476
Mar 0.410
ave 0.420
rnk 12th

Alright, so how many of you guessed wrong and thought that the impact of the adjustments/corrections/updates to HadCRUT4 and CRUTEM4 was to decrease recent warming?…

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Gary Hladik

Actually, I guessed that the adjustments meant we’re all DOOMED!!! so I would have been right whether the adjustments were up or down, because as we all know, the pre-adjustment climate is the only one that can “sustain” life on this planet. 🙂

Mike Bromley the Canucklehead

Basically rendering null and void any credibility from the climate science community at CRU and anywhere else. No instrument is sensitive enough, so they basically make it up as they go along. Tiresome, plodding drudgery masquerading as something to get all excited about.

Brian H

You’d think they would be smart enough to throw a contrary adjustment in here and there to give the appearance of impartiality. OTOH, maybe not.

Should “clearly viable” be ‘clearly visible’ ?

Ever since Wood For Trees [WFT] began posting the Hadcrut4 database, I knew they had invented #4 for only one reason: to show a scarier rise in global temperature than #3 showed. But that scarier rise is only the result of hand-fabricating the record. It is not reality.
Readers of WUWT know that Hadcru is fabricating the temperature record. Why? Because there is no grant money for telling the truth: that there is nothing either unusual or unprecedented happening with global temperatures. It has all happened in the past, repeatedly, and to a much greater degree.
Scientists have been trained with grant funds the way Pavlov’s dogs were trained with dog biscuits.
Unfortunately, scientists as a group are no different than any other group.

Jimbo

“and it seems like the impact of each adjustment/correction/update is to increase the appearance of recent warming. “

This is a problem. This is a good example of bias creeping in. Even if some adjustments mean colder, it’s the overall impact…………..hotter than we previously thought.
Did I see CRU? Now, who do I know at CRU? Jones is ma main man. What did he see from 1998 to 2010?

Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 5th July, 2005
“The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant….”
Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 7th May, 2009
‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’
—–
Dr. Phil Jones – BBC – 13th February 2010
“I’m a scientist trying to measure temperature. If I registered that the climate has been cooling I’d say so. But it hasn’t until recently – and then barely at all. The trend is a warming trend.”
—–
Dr. Phil Jones – BBC – 13th February 2010
[Q] B – “Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming”
[A] “Yes, but only just”.

Isn’t this a clear case of fraud? If so how can they get away with it? Perhaps I might rethink my next tax return.

NZ Willy

Yes, the New Zealand data was adjusted by NIWA some years ago — the raw data shows no trend whatsoever — but the adjustments were too ludicrous to be taken up by CRUTEM. Now the time for shame has passed — they’ll take any adjustments they can get.

RockyRoad

Maybe if they adjusted it the other way, temperatures would actually get warmer! Naaaaa…….

Sorry….i wasn’t braced for the fact that Earth is experiencing….
runaway warming of one hundredth of a degree Centigrade….
over each year of the last decade….even with fudge…it’s a flatline….

Christoph Dollis

I’m having a conversation with a somewhat open-minded, but confused, atheist/skeptic “climate change” believer on Twitter that seems relevant.
Among other things, she linked to this 2012 publication (pdf) on the NASA website for showing temperature increase, and I linked to here.
But look at how effective their propaganda is. You really have to read that conversation, I think, to believe it. (The other day, I had to explain to her how the term “climate change denier” made no sense because no one denies the climate changes, especially those who believe it’s naturally caused.)
She’s actually telling me she thinks they moved from the term “global warming” to “climate change” because the public couldn’t understand the concept of average warming increases.
I’m pointing out to her that “climate change” covers all situations, is unfalsifiable, and is totally manipulative. This should be evident to any thinking person, but apparently my species is just this stupid.
Come to think of it, there’s so much evidence for the stupidity of Homo sapiens that it hardly needs to be remarked upon.

Louis Hooffstetter

Anyone can obviously see from the difference between HadCRUT3 and HadCRUT4 that global cooling really IS global warming. TA DA!
Another shining example of Climastrology fraud! Fire them all!

Rex

I don’t believe a word of it anyway.
Any system that allows a single temperature station to
‘represent’ land surface areas of hundreds of thousands
of square kilometres is broken-backed. Full stop.

DR

“He who controls the weather [records],controls the world”
Nothing from these people is credible.

Master_Of_Puppets

Wow ! It is astonishing the effort of the so called ‘climate scientists’ to ‘homogenize their ‘measurements’ … Ah Ha … to agree with their political-religous beliefs !
The government of the UK is the Seat of the Holy Anglian Church ! Tread lightly there !
From Wikipedia:
Anglicanism is a tradition within Christianity comprising the Church of England and churches which are historically tied to it or have similar beliefs, worship practices and church structures.[1] The word Anglican originates in ecclesia anglicana, a medieval Latin phrase dating to at least 1246 that means the English Church. Adherents of Anglicanism are called Anglicans. The great majority of Anglicans are members of churches which are part of the international Anglican Communion.[2] There are, however, a number of churches outside of the Anglican Communion which also consider themselves to be Anglican, most notably those referred to as Continuing Anglican churches.[3]
Refs:
[1] a b “What it means to be an Anglican”. Church of England. Retrieved 16 March 2009.
[2] “The Anglican Communion official website – homepage”. Archived from the original on 19 March 2009. Retrieved 16 March 2009.
[3] Retrieved 9 November 2010.
Although the word Anglican usually refers to those churches in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury,[55] many Continuing Anglican bodies in the United States use the term Anglican to both assert their heritage and also to differentiate themselves from the Episcopal Church.
Ref:
[55] Accessed 9 November 2010
Now a question:
Is Human Forced Climate Change Greater Than Natural Forced Climate Change ?
For brevity I will render a conundrum:
The Anglian Church [tradition, society, knowledge] asserts Man as the shaper of all Creation.
They are funding [i.e. giving cash i.e. money that is not accountable, recordable or otherwise noted by electronic or written transaction] to the IPCC ! How lovely.
The Catholic Church [tradition, society, knowledge] asserts God as the shaper of all Creation.
They are not funding the IPCC !
Let the War To End All Wars Begin, … yet Again !
😉

Olaf Koenders

If the charts were graduated in whole degrees (something we can actually FEEL – maybe) instead of tenths, they would all show an essentially flat line and in audio terms, would barely resemble static.
Oxygen thieves the lot of ’em. If not for the benefits of their constant moaning and wailing – creating CO2, they should have their intakes tied off.

Olaf Koenders

..If not other bodyparts as well!

Brad

When will the funders, our elected officials, wake up to this? If only the Republicans take this up it could make things worse as it will look like more anti-science stuff. How do we get the truth out?

kramer

It astounds me that they wonder why we are skeptics of their ‘science.’

AndyG55

And let’s not forget all the previous massive adjustments that cooled down all temperatures before the satellite record.
A truly Mannian effort was required to flatten everything from 1850 to 1970, and leave just a rise since 1970.
It’s truly a joke and a fart !!

Theo Goodwin

Christoph Dollis says:
May 12, 2013 at 6:27 pm
Great post! Tell her one more thing. They took a perfectly ordinary and inoffensive expression with a perfectly good meaning, climate change, and turned it into something that causes fear.
That is not the most harmful and hateful thing they accomplished. They made children fearful of hot weather – drained all the joy out of it.

Theo Goodwin

As I read the graphs, the warming is only 1980 to 1998. Why is that eighteen year period so important?

Thanks for the news. The CRU just managed to show 2012 a bit warmer than it used to be.
The good old warming days seem to be gone, hard as they try.
I just updated the graph in my climate and weather pages.

Convince anyone in Minnesota that it is warming….
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50146674n

Hasbeen

garymount, I thick the word you were actually searching for was risible. Seems to fit the bill to me.

john robertson

Amazing, that is desperation and insanity combining to create satire.
With no other play left on their books, its same old play, for sure it will work differently, those uneducated doubters will believe us this time.

Christoph Dollis

Theo Goodwin says:
May 12, 2013 at 7:30 pm
Christoph Dollis says:
May 12, 2013 at 6:27 pm
Great post! Tell her one more thing. They took a perfectly ordinary and inoffensive expression with a perfectly good meaning, climate change, and turned it into something that causes fear.
That is not the most harmful and hateful thing they accomplished. They made children fearful of hot weather – drained all the joy out of it.

Thanks, Theo. And good suggestion.
The conversation is continuing. This is bet an excerpt:

2h
@skepticalpark And this is just Britain. It’s devestating to people in less developed countries: http://is.gd/bCj6mp [link to an article showing deaths in Britain caused by lack of energy related to CO2 restrictions, etc.]

2h
@skepticalpark Who loses? Well the people who die and don’t have access to sufficient energy to live a decent life, to start with.

20m
@ChristophDollis I have to say, I hadn’t heard anything about that! That’s insane!

@skepticalpark Note how the propaganda term they chose, “climate change”, means that if **I** am right, and if climate cycles are natural

@skepticalpark and inevitable, they can still claim them as proof of their theory. Whatever happens, it’s reason to be afraid.
9m

@skepticalpark Now couple this with the Holocaust-esque “climate change denier” libel. Is this proper scientific discourse “Skeptical Park”?
8m

@skepticalpark “That’s insane!” 1. Why haven’t you heard about that? 2. WHY haven’t you heard about that? 3. … ? (Ponder this.)
7m

@skepticalpark “That’s insane!” It follows logically though, right? Energy is kind of important. Now assuming AGW is valid and I am wrong…
5m

@skepticalpark … still, ask yourself, why did they have to use such obvious propaganda terms and strategy to sell it?
4m

2m
@skepticalpark http://is.gd/R1yLi6 [link to this post on WattsUp] Check the record of previous adjustments, not just this last one. Notice a bias in the adjustments?
3m

@skepticalpark And why do they keep on making temperature measurements, and having to keep on adjusting it upwards after the fact?
4m

4m
@ChristophDollis Holy Moses! slow down! It’s a lot to take in! I’ve been reading – you know, when life allows – and I will certainly looking

@ChristophDollis at climate change with more critical eye – based on what you’ve pointed out! Need to digest, though!
Skeptical Park 6m

6m
@ChristophDollis no, it’s not proper scientific discourse

Now imagine if she knew about the Michael Mann’s IPCC hockey stick graph Medieval Warm Period “hide the decline” and the fraudulent shenanigins at the Climatic Research Unit?

I guess is something does not exist, just invent it. This worked well for entrepreneur’s, unfortunately for scientists this is so wrong on so many levels. Is there a complete and unhomogenized data set out there? In 5 to 10 years, we will not know what is truly going on period. This was something I feared coming from GISS but I guess CRU was too close to the truth and the believers needed to spread more uncertainty.

What I meant to ask in my above statement, is there a RAW data set for the measured era, with all this manipulating even if the earth began to cool we will never know as GISS and CRU now are completely inventing warmth that does not exist.

RossP

” Amazing, that is desperation and insanity combining to create satire.”
Very well put John.
There has to be some legal way that these fraudsters can be held to account.
Having said that the basic AGW theory is busted no matter what they do. We are told the CO2 levels are now above 400ppm and yet even with their adjustments the temperature has only marginally increased over the last 15 years.

Is this the finding of missing heat and an end to the travesty?

Jon

Just like in USSR when nothing happend in the present they changes the past to make it look as if present was getting better.
🙂

Alex

I was feeling cold before the adjustment, now I feel warm. I’ve switched of the heating and saved some money. Thanks for the adjustment.

Jon

Brad said “When will the funders, our elected officials, wake up to this? If only the Republicans take this up it could make things worse as it will look like more anti-science stuff. How do we get the truth out?”
Most of today’s elected officials and funders is behind this and this is just what they want.
Politized science. To get the truth out you need to get rid of these elected officials in the next election.

Jon

Since Jones et Al first data set how much have the data been “adjust” to make past colder and the present warmer?

Hoser

Clothing manufacturers figured out you should cut the fabric slightly larger over the years but label it the same so fatter people would be happier, and buy more of the product.

omar

I would love to see an overview of all the adjustments to this series from version 1 and up.
I am still frustrated over the adjustments to the sea level series by NOAA, where the series over night went from showing sea level rise to showing sea level volume, by adding a compensation for a theoretical sinking of the sea floor to the data.
They have not yet got enough stick for this

Kaboom

It would seem UEA is the major source of global warming and shutting it down will help more than reducing CO2 emissions /sarc

Martin A

“Can You Guess The Impact?”
It’s worse than we thought?

Man Bearpig

Real World to Hadley, real world to Hadley …. It’s colder here … and has been for last 15 years or more please explain this..
Another amazing piece of work by the Sci-Fi team at Hadley.

dwr54

The updated HadCRUT4 version doesn’t appear to be in any better agreement with Dr Spencer and Dr Christy’s UAH satellite data over recent years than either of the previous two HadCRUT versions.
The trend in HadCRUT4.2.0.0 from March 1997 to March 2013 remains +0.04C per decade compared to +0.09C per decade in UAH.

couple things.
cru use data from nws. so homogenization happens there.
also we now have 2000 more stations than we did before at berkeley.
posts forthcoming….
data recovery continues.
you should expect more warming as cru adds data. they are biased low relative to what we know from a dataset 6 times larger than theirs

Reblogged this on yasarnorman.

Peter Miller

From Wikipedia – Lots of scary parallels here.
Nineteen Eighty-Four is a dystopian[1] novel by George Orwell published in 1949. The Oceanian province of Airstrip One is a world of perpetual war, omnipresent government surveillance, and public mind control, dictated by a political system euphemistically named English Socialism (Ingsoc) under the control of a privileged Inner Party elite that persecutes all individualism and independent thinking as thoughtcrimes.[2] Their tyranny is headed by Big Brother, the quasi-divine Party leader who enjoys an intense cult of personality, but who may not even exist. Big Brother and the Party justify their rule in the name of a supposed greater good.[1] The protagonist of the novel, Winston Smith, is a member of the Outer Party who works for the Ministry of Truth (Minitrue), which is responsible for propaganda and historical revisionism. His job is to re-write past newspaper articles so that the historical record always supports the current party line.

Werner Brozek

dwr54 says:
May 12, 2013 at 11:15 pm
The trend in HadCRUT4.2.0.0 from March 1997 to March 2013 remains +0.04C per decade
Would you happen to have both numbers to 3 significant digits? The reason I ask is that I did a bit of number crunching and found the following increases for the years 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001. The increases were 0.008, 0.003, 0.003 and 0.004 respectively for an average of 0.0045 for the first 4 full years. However for the last full four years, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012, the increases were 0.005, 0.007, 0.008 and 0.015 for an average of 0.00875. Thanks!

This isn’t temperature measurement; it’s temperature invention. The attempt at data manipulation is crude and obvious. The thermometer DaVinci’s are apparently reaching their wits end as they scramble to manufacture a warming signal without making the subterfuge appear too obvious. In that regard, they have failed.
The HadCRUT, and also the GISS temperature data, has been adjusted, homogenized and tinkered with to the point of irrelevance. Can it be trusted any more? Years from now, when HadCRUT 10.0 data is released, will we discover that the planet emerged from a major glaciation during the 1930s, leading to a long and sustained period of warming into the early 21st century similar to the Cambrian period? Nothing would surprise this observer.
Perhaps it would behoove us to stick with the RSS and UAH temperature data sets. They appear to be a tad more accurate than HadCRUT and CRUTEM — and GISS.

Peter Miller

I just had to re-write my last post in today’s context.
2013 is part of a story, whose final outcome has yet to be published. The Global Warming Industry (GWI) exists in a world of perpetual war against the denialists, omnipresent government surveillance, and public mind control, dictated by a political influence system euphemistically named Climate Change under the control of a privileged elite (the Team) that persecutes all individualism and independent thinking as thoughtcrimes, or denialism. Their tyranny is headed by Big Al Gore, the quasi-divine leader who enjoys an intense cult of personality, but who never debates his beliefs with outsiders and therefore some say may not even exist. Big Al and the GWI justify their rule in the name of a supposed greater good. The protagonist of the novel, Anthony Watts, is a member of the denialists who works for the truth and is responsible for exposing GWI propaganda and historical revisionism. His job is to write articles which preserve the actual historical record and to expose the routine deceit, misrepresentations and the data manipulations of Big Al’s acolytes.

Christoph Dollis says:
May 12, 2013 at 9:08 pm
If facts don’t work in trying to get your friend to see the sceptic viewpoint, you could try fiction. I have a free-to-read sceptical cli-fi / sci-fi story in various formats here:
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/273983
The story also featured in a post here at WUWT:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/15/wuwt-spawns-a-free-to-read-climate-sci-fi-novel/
Some folks can digest stories better than they can dry scientific facts.
Andy